"The Orthodox don't dispute that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son, they protest tampering with the text without consulting with them."
Since when? The recent agreed statement of the North American Consultation of Orthodox and Roman bishops on the matter has urged us to "refrain" from refering to each other's formulation of the procession of the Holy Spirit as heretical, but since various Romans on these threads feel no compunction about adopting the Frankish position of the barbarian Charlemagne (a position rejected by the then Pope, by the way)that the original counciliar formulation of the procession of the Holy Spirit is heretical, let me state as clearly as I can that the Roman formulation of filioque, a formulation which the Consultation urged be dropped in all new translations of the Creed and in catechetical settings, is a massive heresy! It proclaims a strange double procession of the Holy Spirit which destroys the unity of the Trinity both within and without the Godhead. This isn't some arcane theological point which has no meaning in the modern world. The procession as established by the One Church and soundly grounded in Scripture (John 15:26). It would be too simple to ascribe this error to the simple and sadly undeveloped state of Roman pneumatology at this late date. Rome has now, and has had for some centuries in fact, the benefit of the far more developed pneumatology of the Eastern Fathers, even if the schismatics of the 11th century didn't. The only excuse for maintaining the filioque at all is the trap the innovations of Vatican I got the Roman Church into. Even the Romans recognize that.
For anyone interested in the Agreed Statement, here's a link: http://www.goarch.org/print/en/news/releases/articles/release8676.asp
The Catholic church does not consider dropping the filioque as heretical, -- it is dropped in some Catholic rites. Maybe someone on this thread views it as heretical or unimportant, but then it is his mistake, not mine and not the Church's.
Christ gave the Holy Ghost to the Apostles. That is all that we need to know to justify including the Filioque. In no way does it put the Holy Trinity out of alignment, because we also agree with omitting it. You seek disagreement where there is none, beyond textological procedure.
Thank you, and beautifully said.
Thanks for the link:
http://www.goarch.org/print/en/news/releases/articles/release8676.asp
After reading it, I have some comments.
It seems to me that you have presumed I knew about this North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation under the joint chairmanship of Metropolitan Maximos of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh and Archbishop Pilarczyk of Cincinnati. I did not.
You say: that the Consultation
>>has urged us to "refrain" from refering to each other's formulation of the procession of the Holy Spirit as heretical, but since various Romans on these threads feel no compunction about adopting the Frankish position of the barbarian Charlemagne (a position rejected by the then Pope, by the way) that the original counciliar formulation of the procession of the Holy Spirit is heretical, let me state as clearly as I can that the Roman formulation of filioque, a formulation which the Consultation urged be dropped in all new translations of the Creed and in catechetical settings, is a massive heresy!<<
In other words, even though you knew about the directive for us to "refrain" from refering to each other's formulation of the procession of the Holy Spirit as heretical, you now choose to ignore that directive (to which you owe deference?) when you have observed someone else (who is not subject) possibly ignoring it, even if you are wrong in assuming that he even knew it existed!
If this is any clue to how this problem has progressed over the centuries, I can understand now WHY there is a problem!
>>It proclaims a strange double procession of the Holy Spirit which destroys the unity of the Trinity both within and without the Godhead.<<
I am really sorry, but I cannot follow you here. I do not see how the unity of the Trinity is at risk in any way, here. This "strange double procession" is nothing but the reciprocal divine, eternal love of the Father for the Son and of the Son for the Father. It's the same divine love we (Roman Catholics, anyway) contemplate before the crucifix (and before the Blessed Sacrament), which is at the very foundation of our faith. How does that "destroy the unity of the Trinity?!"
Apparently I, and perhaps others, have hit your hot buttons but you do not have the patience (or do you?) to deal with the irritation in a manner becoming one who seeks to help resolve the dispute. If that's true, that's unfortunate. If it's true of the Orthodox at large, it becomes clear to me why the resolution of this dispute would not reasonably be expected to come from the Orthodox side.
>>[B]oth sides of the debate have often caricatured the positions of the other… The Consultation recommends that the Catholic Church declare that the anathema pronounced by the Second Council of Lyons against those who deny that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son is no longer applicable.<<
This statement would require a fundamental denial of all Apostolic tradition. IF defined dogma can be obliterated, THEN nothing is possible to define AND Peter did not recieve the Keys from Our Lord AND all previous definitions are up for grabs. How's that for logic? Any Catholic who agrees that such anathemas are "no longer applicable" put themselves outside the Church. I don't look at this principle as a "deep hole into which the Western Church has dug itself" but rather a bastion of defense against the attacks of errors on divine Revelation. One ultra-Modernist prelate has proclaimed that the Church's bastions must be demolished. JPII ("the great?") did not condemn him for saying this.
Frankly, I am a bit scandalized that a prelate of the Roman Church (Pilarczyk) would participate in negotiations with schismatics toward his contradiction of previously defined articles of the Faith. This would appear to constitute his own latae sententiae excommunication. And if it does, no Catholic owes him ANY obedience, especially in the very error for which he is at fault.
On one point, it is not fair for you to characterize "a formulation which the Consultation urged be dropped in all new translations of the Creed and in catechetical settings" as "a massive heresy!" because the recently deceased Pontiff was apparently not included in the discussion (if JPII's approval was included, I'm sure the Consultation would have announced it loudly!). Are Catholics supposed to break ranks and follow the lead of the Greek Orthodox?? It would seem to me that Archbishop Pilarczyk of Cincinnati participated in an event embarrassing for the Pope. Since I am not under the authority of Pilarczyk, especially if he is in error, I have no obligation to observe his directives on which the Pope did not pronounce.
Now Orthodox are (or at least one is!) going around pronoucing "Massive Heresy!" on Roman Catholics who recite the Creed the same way they have been praying it for over one millenium. Are you okay with that?
(As an aside, I am wondering what kind of form this type of discussion would take if women from each group were debating, knowing the cat fights in which they are known to engage!)
Well, not being able to read the pertinent parts of the 10,000 pages, I have to ask whether it adresses something that is of great theological consequence; for the link you provided does not mention it. But I will:
The Gospel of John (ch. 1) refers to Jesus Christ as "the only begotten of the Father." Now, if the Son proceeds from the Father, and we say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father but NOT from the Son, doesn't that at least confuse the identification of the Son as the "only begotten?"
Since you say He proceeds only from the Father, how would you respond to a cult that springs up announcing that the Son has a twin brother(?!?!), or whatever, and the Holy Ghost (or Spirit), is therefore... (fill in the blank)?
Some examples: the twin brother of Jesus is satan (Mormonism), the Holy Spirit was incarnated in St. Joseph (a cult in California holds this error), or that the Holy Spirit is coming for a New Pentecost in which the whole world will receive the new revelation for the New Age, which makes the Revelation of Jesus obsolete? I hope I don't have to point out how the Antichrist would squeal with diabolical glee over such a false doctrine becoming widely accepted.
I don't pretend omniscience, or ability to list all the possibilities. I just want to know how the Greek Orthodox would deal with this confusion.
The Roman explanation that has the Holy Ghost as an eternal reciprocation between the Father and the Son, and an equal sharer in the Diviity of Persons, etc., makes these errors, above, impossible. But if the Holy Ghost is something like a twin brother of Jesus, we are left open to such further errors, are we not?
I repeat, for what it's worth, that I don't expect we can resolve anything here, but I desire a deeper and clearer comprehension of the nature of this ancient dispute between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox. In case it is not evident, as a traditional Catholic, I feel a large degree of appreciation toward the Orthodox congregations for maintaining as well as they have the multiplicity of trappings and their liturgical beauty under the modern assault on same.